Nord Stream AG v Lloyd's Insurance Company SA & Anor Neutral Citation Number[2026] EWHC... Nord Stream AG v Lloyd's Insurance Company SA & Anor Neutral Citation Number[2026] EWHC...

Nord Stream AG v Lloyd's Insurance Company SA & Anor Neutral Citation Number[2026] EWHC...

The operator of the Nord Stream pipeline was suing insurance companies for damages caused to the pipelines by explosions which rendered them...
X and Y (Care Proceedings: Publication of Judgment: Criticism of Expert Witness), Re X and Y (Care Proceedings: Publication of Judgment: Criticism of Expert Witness), Re

X and Y (Care Proceedings: Publication of Judgment: Criticism of Expert Witness), Re

In her judgment on X and Y (Care Proceedings: Fact Finding: Death of a Child), the Judge was highly critical of the evidence and conduct during...
Expert Witnesses at a Turning Point Expert Witnesses at a Turning Point

Expert Witnesses at a Turning Point

This year’s Annual Conference discussed AI, independence, credibility, transparency and the changing expectations on expert witnesses.
Podcast Episode 28: Reflections on the EWI Conference 2026 Podcast Episode 28: Reflections on the EWI Conference 2026

Podcast Episode 28: Reflections on the EWI Conference 2026

This month on the Expert Matters Podcast, we take a look at the EWI Annual Conference which was held on 19 June. The Conference got off to a great...

Check out our Case Updates and Member Magazine

Looking for more news relevant to the Expert Witness community? Why not check out our database of cases relevant to Expert Evidence or the latest and previous editions of our member magazine, Expert Matters.

News

Clicking on one of the topics below will display news items relevant to that topic. You can also use the search bar below to identify news items.

Director of Public Prosecutions v BB (Approved) [2024] IECA 155
Case Updates

Director of Public Prosecutions v BB (Approved) [2024] IECA 155

This Irish case is primarily of interest to psychologists and others concerned about courts’ reliance on evidence from psychologists who are not registered with an appropriate regulator and not clinically trained. The points of general application concern the high threshold to be reached in order to admit as expert evidence the evidence that comes from a body of knowledge that is not widely recognised.